State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations Susan B. Epstein Specialist in Foreign Policy Marian L. Lawson Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy Alex Tiersky Analyst in Foreign Affairs November 5, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43901
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
Alex Tiersky
Analyst in Foreign Affairs
November 5, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43901
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
Summary On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for
FY2016. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) totals $54.08
billion, or a 4% increase from FY2015-estimated levels. Within that amount
$47.04 billion is requested for enduring or core funding and $7.05 billion is
designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, excluding add-
ons and rescissions;
$17.55 billion of the total request is for State Department Operations and related
agencies (10.6% increase over FY2015 estimates);
$36.53 billion is for Foreign Operations (1.2% above the FY2015 estimates);
excluding the FY2015 Ebola supplemental funding, the State Department
Operations FY2016 request is a 10.9% increase over FY2015 estimates, and the
Foreign Operations FY2016 request is a 7% increase over FY2015 funding
estimates.
House and Senate committees held several hearings on various aspects of the international affairs
budget in February and March. Both chambers passed FY2016 budget resolutions in late March.
The House (on April 30, 2015) and the Senate (on May 5, 2015) reconciled budget resolution
funding levels in conference (H.Rept. 114-96); however, OCO suballocations were not
established.
The House Appropriations Committee reported its FY2016 SFOPS bill out of committee on June
11, 2015. The House committee bill (H.R. 2772; H.Rept. 114-154) recommended $48.19 billion
in total funding, excluding rescissions, but including $7.33 billion designated as OCO.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2016 bill out of committee on July 9, 2015.
The Senate committee bill (S. 1725; S.Rept. 114-79) recommended $49.77 billion in total
funding, excluding rescissions, but including $9.48 billion designated as OCO and $759 million
in emergency funds.
On September 30, 2015, the House and Senate approved, and President Obama signed into law, a
resolution (P.L. 114-53) to provide temporary FY2016 continuing appropriations through
December 11, 2015.
On October 5, 2015, the Senate SFOPS bill was incorporated in a national security-related
“minibus” bill (S. 2130), one of four minibus bills into which Senate FY2016 appropriations bills
were bundled.
On October 6, Senate SFOPS leaders introduced supplemental appropriations legislation (S.
2145) to increase FY2016 migration and refugee assistance funding by $1 billion to address the
Middle East refugee crisis.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314; P.L.
114-74), which raises the discretionary spending limit by $50 billion for FY2016 and $30 billion
for FY2017 (thus increasing spending caps for defense and nondefense for those years), and
increases OCO funding by $16 billion for each year, equally divided between DOD and SFOPS.
This report provides an overview of the FY2016 SFOPS request, a discussion of key issues and
historic context, and account-by-account funding comparisons with FY2014 actuals, available
FY2015 estimates, and FY2016 legislation. The report will be updated throughout the
appropriations process.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
Contents
FY2016 Most Recent Actions ......................................................................................................... 1
The Budget Control Act and State-Foreign Operations Appropriations ................................... 4 FY2016 Request: Enduring vs. Overseas Contingency Operations Funding............................ 5
State Department Operations ........................................................................................................... 6
State Operations: Key Issues ........................................................................................................... 7
House Appropriators: 15% Operational Funding Withheld ...................................................... 7 Frontline States.......................................................................................................................... 8 International Organizations/Peacekeeping ................................................................................ 8 Diplomatic Security .................................................................................................................. 9 Management and Human Resources of the Department of State ............................................. 11
Administration Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 15 Global Health Initiative..................................................................................................... 15 Feed the Future ................................................................................................................. 16 Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) ........................................................................ 17 Africa Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 17
Sources: Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State and Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016;
CRS appropriations reports; CRS calculations.
Note: OCO = Overseas Contingency Operations; Supp. = Supplemental funding, which includes funds
requested for Iraq and Afghanistan prior to FY2012, when OCO was first requested and appropriated. FY2015
OCO/Supp. includes $9.26 billion for OCO and $2.53 billion for emergency Ebola funds.
3 Executive Budget Summary, Function 150 & Other International Programs, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 137. 4 For more detail on OCO within SFOPS, see CRS In Focus IF00063, Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO): Background and Current Issues.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 6
Figure 3. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Funding
Trends, FY2006-FY2016 Request
Source: Congressional Budget Justifications, FY2008-FY2016 and CRS calculations.
State Department Operations For FY2016, the Administration seeks to grow funding for the State Department and Related
Accounts category by 10.6% over FY2015-estimated levels, to $17.55 billion. Both “base” (or
“enduring”) funding and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding would grow under the
proposal, by 11.6% and 4.6%, respectively. The composition of this portion of the budget request
is illustrated in Figure 4. (A 10-year historical trend line appears in Figure 1.)
Figure 4. Composition of State Operations and Related Accounts, FY2016 Request
Source: CRS calculations based on Department of State, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification.
Among the top-line accounts, Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), the Department’s
main operating account, would grow by 9.6%, to $8.6 billion. Public diplomacy (PD) spending,
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 7
including exchange programs and international broadcasting, would see a 3.2% boost to a total of
$1.37 billion under the FY2016 request.
The State Department’s second largest administrative account is Embassy Security, Construction
and Maintenance (ESCM); the FY2016 proposal calls for $2.22 billion, a 4.5% decrease from the
FY2015-estimated level (see Table 3). Other noteworthy reductions in the proposed budget
include significant proposed cuts in the “Related Programs” account, which funds a number of
non-governmental institutions. The FY2016 request proposes a 20% lower level for these
accounts overall, which would mean budget reductions to, among other institutions, the East-West
Center, the Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (cuts of 35%, 29%,
and 23%, respectively).
Table 3. State Department and Related Accounts: Total Funding and Select Accounts
Diplomatic Security (DS) in D&CP 0.09 0.09 0.09 +1%
TOTAL 4.47 4.7 4.91 +4%
Source: CRS calculations from Department of State budget presentation documents.
Notes: Includes OCO funding levels. Other embassy and diplomatic security funding is within two other
subaccounts: Counterterrorism within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), and Diplomatic Security
within Border Security Program (BSP). See CRS Report R43721, Diplomatic and Embassy Security Funding Before
and After the Benghazi Attacks, by Susan B. Epstein.
Under H.R. 2772, House appropriators would provide the full enduring and OCO amounts
requested for the Worldwide Security Protection account (WSP) and the Worldwide Security
Upgrades (WSU) account. The bill prohibits the use of funds for the development of FASTC until
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 11
the training center is specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress. Should the
authorization not be provided before September 30, 2016, the appropriators allow requested funds
to be used to expand training at existing sites.
Senate appropriators would also provide the full amount requested under Worldwide Security
Protection. The bill would provide $1.3 billion for Worldwide Security Upgrades, meeting the
President’s request for enduring funding, but not providing an additional $124 million in
requested OCO funding (which the House would provide). In addition, Section 7006 of the act
would provide authority for the Department of State to award local guard contracts globally on
the basis of best value as determined by a cost-technical tradeoff analysis (an authority previously
extended only to high-risk, high-threat posts), which the committee report states is “essential to
improving security at missions abroad.”
Management and Human Resources of the Department of State
With the support of Congress, the Foreign Service grew by almost 20% between FY2008 and
FY2012, and the department’s Civil Service by 7% over that same time period. The growth was
an attempt to address what many observers saw as chronic personnel shortfalls that were
worsened by a sudden need to fill large numbers of overseas positions in the frontline states. The
Foreign Service is now experiencing a youth bulge, with junior officers hired in these years
beginning to move into the mid-levels of the service.
The Administration’s FY2016 request for Human Resources (under Diplomatic & Consular
Programs) is 1% higher than FY2015-enacted levels, at a total of $2.4 billion. The request
indicates that the department seeks 39 new positions funded by appropriations (12 Foreign
Service and 27 Civil Service), although 21 of these would be realigned from previously existing
positions based in Afghanistan.8 The department also seeks funding throughout the request to
address what it terms a gap in the pay of Locally Employed Staff at its overseas posts, relative to
local salary conditions. State’s more than 46,000 local employees make up upwards of 65% of the
department’s total workforce; the department seeks to ensure that working as part of U.S.
diplomatic missions abroad remains an attractive proposition.
Among other personnel-related issues, the Department’s request notably does not include
additional funding for Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) (as it did in recent years, although not
in FY2015). OCP adjustment is intended to bring the base pay of Foreign Service personnel
posted overseas to levels comparable to their Foreign Service colleagues serving in Washington,
DC, who receive locality pay. OCP has long been a priority of the Foreign Service rank-and-file,
who argue that the discrepancy affects morale, retention of FSOs, and acts as a financial
disincentive to serve overseas, including by its cumulative impact on retirement pay. The
department sought $81.4 million in FY2014 funding to provide the third portion of a three-phase
adjustment, the first two tranches of which were supported by Congress in previous years. The
third OCP phase has not been supported by congressional appropriators to date.
H.R. 2772 would provide a total of $2.32 billion for Department of State human resources, or 4%
less than requested. S. 1725 would provide $2.24 billion for human resources, and does not
support funding for new positions other than those explicitly described in report language.
8 As points of comparison, the State Department requested appropriated funding for 53 new positions in its FY2015
request, for 35 new positions in FY2014, for 121 new positions in FY2013, and for 133 in FY2012.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 12
Foreign Operations The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, with the exception of
food aid.9 It includes bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export
promotion programs, as well as USAID administrative accounts. For FY2016, the Administration
requested about $36.53 billion for Foreign Operations accounts, 1.2% more than the FY2015
estimate.10
Within this, about $5.2 billion was requested with the OCO designation.
Figure 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2016 Request
Source: FY2016 International Affairs CBJ.
Notes: Excludes export promotion accounts. Humanitarian assistance includes the International Disaster
Assistance, Migration and Refugee Assistance, and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance accounts.
The FY2016 State-Foreign Operations legislation approved by the appropriations committees of
both the House and Senate provide less than requested for foreign operations accounts. The
legislation approved by the House appropriations committee (H.R. 2772) includes $32.22 billion
for Foreign Operations accounts, including $5.55 billion designated as OCO. Overall, this
represents about 12% less than the Administration request and 11% less than FY2015 estimated
funding. The bill passed by Senate appropriators (S. 1725) includes a total of $32.92 billion for
foreign operations accounts, about 10% less than requested. This includes not only $6.82 billion
designated as OCO, but an additional $759 million designated as humanitarian and emergency
response (a designation, like OCO, which precludes these funds from being counted toward the
BCA caps).
Figure 5 shows the FY2016 foreign operations request broken out proportionately by the
categories typically used in appropriations legislation, while Table 5 shows the funding trend for
each category for FY2014, FY2015, the FY2016 request, and the FY2016 House and Senate
9 The two international food assistance programs, Food for Peace (aka P.L. 480, title II) and Food for Education (aka
McGovern-Dole), are funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill. 10 Earlier versions of this report stated that the request was 0.8% below the FY2015 funding level. The change is the
result of updated estimates in the export promotion accounts. At the time of the budget request, total export and
investment promotion revenues were anticipated to exceed costs in FY2016 by $1.06 billion. CBO request estimates
accompanying the House and Senate bills reduced that estimate to $0.59 billion.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 13
committee-approved bills. (The overall foreign operations 10-year trend line is depicted in Figure
1.)
Table 5. Foreign Operations by Type, FY2014, FY2015,the FY2016 Request, and
The FY2016 foreign operations request would increase U.S. financial commitments toward
responding to the crisis in Syria and fighting the Islamic State (IS).16
The Administration
identifies $1.82 billion in its FY2016 request for these purposes, including $255 million for non-
humanitarian assistance to support opposition groups within Syria. Of this amount, $65 million is
requested from the peacekeeping operations (PKO) account to provide non-lethal assistance to
vetted members of the armed Syrian opposition, in parallel to the Department of Defense-led train
and equip program, for which the Administration has requested $600 million in defense funding.17
15 This figure does not reflect $222 million the bill rescinds from prior year OCO appropriations. 16 For more information about IS and related U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43612, The “Islamic State” Crisis and U.S.
Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard et al. 17 For more information about the train and equip program, see CRS Report R43727, Train and Equip Program for
Syria: Authorities, Funding, and Issues for Congress, by Christopher M. Blanchard and Amy Belasco.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 20
Most of the requested foreign operations funding would be used to address the impact of the crisis
on Syria’s neighbors. The Administration identifies its entire $1 billion request for Jordan as
helping to counter IS and mitigate Syria-related economic and security concerns. The
Administration also requested $335 million to strengthen Iraq’s counterterrorism capabilities and
$211 million to assist Lebanon in meeting the needs of Syrian refugees and addressing the IS
threat. The overall “Syria and Counter-ISIL” request is a 17% increase over FY2014 funding for
this purpose (FY2015 funding data are not available). An additional $1.6 billion in U.S.
humanitarian assistance is being requested for the region to respond to the Syria-Iraq crises in
FY2016.
The House committee-passed bill, H.R. 2772, does not specify a funding level for Syria-related
activities but does identify $104 million above FY2015 funding to address the issue of foreign
fighters, fully funds the International Disaster Assistance request, maintains funding for
Migration and Refugee Assistance at the historically high FY2015 level ($3.06 billion, or 25%
more than requested), and allocates $100 million in Economic Support Fund money for Syrian
refugee host communities, especially in Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon.
The Senate committee report, S.Rept. 114-79, identifies $195 million in the Senate committee bill
for non-lethal assistance to Syria, primarily through the Economic Support Fund and
Peacekeeping Operations accounts. The bill also includes $1.175 billion for Jordan, along with a
provision stating that additional funding shall be made available to implement the Jordan
Response Plan 2015 for the Syria Crisis, including assistance for host communities in Jordan. The
bill’s allocation for Iraq, $355.4 million, also comes with a provision saying that the funds may be
used to address needs in areas affected by the Syria crisis. In the humanitarian accounts, the
Senate bill includes $1.895 million for IDA, or 8.8% more than requested, and $2,644 million for
MRA, a 7.8% increase over the request. Unlike the request or the House legislation, the Senate
bill designates a portion ($298 million of IDA and $461 million of MRA) of the humanitarian
funding in the bill as “emergency spending.”
The Senate committee bill also includes a new general provision on countering violent
extremism, Section 7073, which recommends not less than $141.152 million be used for this
purpose. The provision requires that funds be made available to counter the flow of foreign
terrorist fighters and to strengthen governance and security in fragile states bordering countries
where violent extremist groups operate.
Afghanistan/Pakistan
The FY2016 foreign operations request for Afghanistan is $1.514 billion (+28% from FY2014),
which is consistent with the 2012 Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. The funding is
provided primarily though the Economic Support Fund (OCO) account, and intended to support
the new Afghan government and continue a trend away from stabilization and infrastructure
programs. The request includes $804 million for Pakistan (-10% from FY2014) to support
regional stability, counter-terrorism, and long-term political and economic stability. Stability and
prosperity in Pakistan are seen by the Administration as essential to maintaining gains in
Afghanistan. The request describes funding for both countries as consistent with a responsible
glide path, demonstrating that the United States is not abandoning the region even as the U.S.
military presence declines.18
18 For more about U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and foreign assistance to Pakistan, see CRS Report RL30588,
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman, and CRS Report R42116,
Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Aid Conditions, Restrictions, and Reporting Requirements, by Susan B. Epstein and K. Alan
(continued...)
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 21
H.R. 2772 does not specify assistance levels for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The committee report
(H.Rept. 114-154) states that funding for these countries will remain under continuous review as
circumstances in the region evolve, and the Administration is directed to develop its programming
plans for these countries in consultation with the appropriations committees.19
S. 1725 includes $939 million in new foreign operations funds for Afghanistan, largely through
the ESF and INCLE accounts, noting in the report that an additional $3.168 billion in previously
appropriated funds are expected to remain available to carry over into FY2016. For Pakistan, the
bill recommends $625.8 million in new assistance funds, primarily through ESF and FMF, with
the report noting that an additional $1,317 million in previously appropriated but unobligated
carryover funds are expected to be available. The committee report notes improved relations
between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and “encourages continued cooperation on issues of mutual
interest.”20
Countering Russian Aggression
The budget request includes $639.8 million (+283% from FY2014) in FY2016 to bolster Ukraine,
Moldova, and Georgia against “Russian aggression and pressure.” Of this, $513.5 million is for
Ukraine, primarily from Economic Support Funds, to promote economic reforms, advance
democracy and anti-corruption efforts, and support an additional $1 billion loan guarantee if
progress is made on IMF reforms.21
Funding for Moldova ($49.1 million) and Georgia ($77.2
million) would support greater security, democracy and accountability, as well as closer
integration with Europe. All three countries would receive Foreign Military Financing funds to
address military equipment shortfalls and improve interoperability with NATO and other western
forces.
H.R. 2772, as reported by House appropriators, includes $524 million for security and economic
stability assistance to the Ukraine, as well as funds to support broadcasting to counter Russian
propaganda. Accompanying report language states that International Disaster Assistance funding
in the bill may be used to assist people displaced by the conflict in Ukraine. The bill also includes
Foreign Military Financing funds for Ukraine ($47 million), Georgia ($20 million), and Moldova
($12.75 million) as well as $50 million designated as OCO “for European and Eurasian countries
facing Russian aggression.”
The Senate bill, S. 1725, would reestablish the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia
(AEECA) account, which has not been used in recent years, “to more effectively counter Russian
influence and pressure.”22
The committee recommends $853.9 million for the account (of which
about $411 million would be designated as OCO). Within that total, $433 million is for Ukraine,
including $275 million to support a loan guarantee. Georgia would receive $54 million in AEECA
funds, and Moldova about $35 million. Additional funding from the FMF, NADR, IMET, and
(...continued)
Kronstadt. 19 H.Rept. 114-154, p. 6. 20 S.Rept. 114-79, p. 24. 21 For more information on aid to Ukraine, see CRS Report RL33460, Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, by
Steven Woehrel. 22 S.Rept. 114-79, p. 30. The assistance recommended by the committee under AEECA is largely requested by the
Administration under the ESF and INCLE accounts. The AEECA funds would support a range of programs beyond
former Soviet states, including assistance to Kosovo and Ireland.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 22
Global Health Programs would bring total Ukraine assistance to $513.5 million. Georgia ($20
million) and Moldova ($12.75 million) would receive FMF funds as well.
Central America
A notable shift in regional funding proposed by the Administration for FY2016 is the $1 billion
requested for Central America, a region for which funding has generally stagnated in recent
years. The request is 225% more than the FY2014 funding level, and would support a whole-of-
government U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America aimed at promoting economic
prosperity, security, and good governance in the region as a means of stemming the flow of
undocumented migration. The primary recipients of the requested funds would be El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras. Of the total requested, $287 million is allocated for the Central
American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).23
H.R. 2772 and the committee report (H.Rept. 114-154) note the committee’s particular emphasis
on security concerns related to Central America. The bill allocates $296.5 million for CARSI, as
well as additional assistance to Mexico for securing that country’s southern border. Non-security
assistance for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is not specified.
In S.Rept. 114-79, Senate appropriators detail $675.3 million in foreign operations funds
allocated to implement the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle of Central
America. Specific allocations and conditions attached to the funds are laid out in Section 7045(a)
of S. 1725. Within the total, $231.5 million is allocated for CARSI, about $84 million for other
security and military assistance, and approximately $360 million for development and health
programs, primarily in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
23 For more information on CARSI, see CRS Report R41731, Central America Regional Security Initiative:
Background and Policy Issues for Congress, by Peter J. Meyer and Clare Ribando Seelke. For more information on the
President’s FY2016 request for Central America, see a CRS Insight on the subject at http://www.crs.gov/pages/
Insights.aspx?PRODCODE=IN10237.
CRS-23
Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account
Table A-1. State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agency Appropriations, FY2015-FY2016 Request, House
Source: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications for Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, and Fiscal Year 2015
amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, and 10, 2014; P.L. 113-235; H.R. 2772 and H.Rept. 114-154; CRS calculations.
Notes: EE = Ebola emergency request. Shaded columns indicate fiscal year totals. Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are negative numbers. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
CRS-30
a. FY2015 totals include OCO and emergency funding.
b. OCO funding is in Title VIII of the request and the House and Senate bill. Title IX addresses funding for global emergency needs. S. 1725 designates $759 million in
new emergency funding for the humanitarian programs IDA and MRA. The President’s request would rescind FY2015-appropriated emergency funds. H.R. 2772
does not include emergency funds.
c. Includes the International Center (FY2015 estimate=$0.53 million; FY2016 request=$0.74 million; House= $0.74 million; Senate=$0.74million).
d. For FY2015, funding for Conflict Stabilization Operations (CSO) is within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account. For FY2016, the House
committee report recommends deferring funding for CSO until issues such as mission, bureau overlap, and staff size are resolved. The Senate committee report
recommends transferring $11.00 million from the D&CP account to CSO, plus $10.00 million within the Title VIII OCO funds.
e. Within the FY2016 budget request, this is called the Peacekeeping Operations Response Mechanism.
f. Includes the Commission on American Heritage Abroad, the Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the Congressional-Executive Commission the People’s Republic of China, and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
g. On October 6, the chairman and ranking Members of the Senate SFOPS subcommittee introduced a supplemental appropriations bill (S. 2145) to provide an
additional $1 billion in FY2016 emergency funding, through the Migration and Refugee Assistance account, to address the refugee crisis caused by conflict in the
Middle East.
h. This is listed in Title X of the House and Senate bills.
i. This figure represents a $30 million Export-Import Bank rescission and a $4.0 million add-on in the general provisions (Sec. 7076) for an amendment to the Vietnam
Education Foundation Act.
j. This add-on reflects a special immigrant visa proposal in the general provisions on the request (Sec. 7034(0)).
k. IMF quota rescission from P.L. 111-32 emergency funds.
l. Rescission of prior year ESF cash transfer balances.
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2016 Budget and Appropriations
Congressional Research Service 31
Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function
Account, FY2014 Actual, FY2015 Estimate, and
FY2016 Request
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2015-FY2016 Request, House, and Senate
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2015 Estimate FY2016 Request FY2016 House FY2016 Senate Enacted
State-Foreign
Operations,
excluding
commissionsa
51,815.11 52,793.88 47,861.45 47,871.34
Commerce-
Justice-Science
Foreign Claim
Settlement
Commission
2.33 2.37 2.33 2.37
Int’l Trade
Commission 84.50 131.50 84.50 84.50
Agriculture
P.L. 480 and
McGovern-Dole 1,657.63 1,614.10 1,611.10 1,670.10
Total
International
Affairs (150)
53,559.57 54,541.85 49,559.38 49,628.63
Source: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications for
Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, and Fiscal Year 2015 amended requests of June 26, 2014, November 5, and 10, 2014,
P.L. 113-235, H.R. 3049, S. 1800, H.R. 2578, and CRS calculations.
a. While funding for certain international commissions are appropriated in the State-Foreign Operations bill,
they are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 Account.